Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whose 2020 Vision will the IOC go for?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Whose 2020 Vision will the IOC go for?
At around 9pm BST, the IOC will announce the host city for the Games of the XXXIInd Olympiad – Istanbul, Madrid or Tokyo. At the time of writing, Tokyo was the favourite at 8/11 with Coral, followed by Madrid (best with Paddy Power at 9/5), with Istanbul as the outsider (8/1 with Ladbrokes).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Can the PB Hodges confirm if this thread is a disaster for Ed M?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to-X2PNDWBE
I think you're a little obsessed.
I've been through all the individual results and this is what the target list looks like.
If the result is closer than 52-48 in a constituency with less than 80% declared I've left it blank:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dERmb2NsbmpUNmlyOHplOTNOTE9iZVE#gid=0
They often seem to pick up-and-coming countries that in a phase of fast economic growth, which would point to Istanbul, although when I've mentioned that here knowledgeable-sounding people have said it would be a very bold choice for infrastructure reasons etc.
Juan Antonio Samaranch’s son is an IOC member
Moreton: Lab 52.0%, 72% reporting
Banks: Coa 51.8%, 77% rep.
Petrie: Coa 50.4%, 75% rep.
Reid: Coa 50.4%, 76% rep.
Lilley: Lab 51.1%, 76% rep.
Capricornia: Lab 50.1%, 79% rep.
Lingiari: Lab 50.9%, 68% rep.
Eden-Monaro: Coa 50.6%, 80% rep.
Parramatta: Lab 50.8%, 74% rep.
Dobell: Coa 50.7%, 80% rep.
Chisholm: Lab 51.7%, 70% rep.
Hindmarsh: Lab 52.0%, 75% rep.
Barton: Lab 50.1%, 77% rep.
Bruce: Lab 51.3%, 73% rep.
McEwen: Lab 50.4%, 73% rep.
Bendigo: Lab 51.2%, 78% rep.
Lyons: Coa 51.8%, 77% rep.
Kennedy: Kat 52.0%, 72% rep.
Solomon: Coa 51.1%, 79% rep.
Fairfax: no 2PP information available, 76% rep.
Indi: no 2PP information available, 77% rep.
We beat Madrid along the way in the race for 2012.
Take that you paella eating surrender monkeys
Expect Atlanta to [actually] host the 2020 games....
UK custom and practice is for Prime Ministers to seek cross-party parliamentary endorsement for military action or war. This can be done by forming a National Coalition, as happened during WWII, or, for more limited engagements, by negotiating with opposition leaders in advance of any vote to secure cross-party agreement.
A decision to go to war will always have its dissenters, from individual MPs and even Ministers in both main parties and with smaller parties voting en bloc. But the aim of most PMs is to secure a general consensus of Parliament for action thereby avoiding the exposure of political weakness to enemy and ally alike.
This is why Ed Miliband, as a Privy Councillor, was granted access to government intelligence, the reasonings of the National Security Council and Joint Intelligence Committee, as well as the views of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet. It is also why Miliband was given every opportunity to raise his concerns and requirements and to have his reasonable demands provided for in the government motion put to vote in the house.
Miliband availed himself of all these opportunities and courtesies and even issued a press release affirming his support in principle for the government two days before the vote.
Miliband then met resistance from his shadow cabinet, with threats of resignation and much division within his party on support for the government motion. Instead of informing Cameron that he could not muster wide support from his party for the government motion, he sought to have his cake and eat it. He divided the House by introducing an opposition amendment and threatened that, if the Coalition government did vote with for his amendment, his party would oppose the government motion. And this applied even though there was no substantive difference between the provisions of the government motion and the opposition amendment.
What Miliband did was divide the House on a matter of national security and international foreign policy, antagonising the country's closest ally and making the country look weak and indecisive throughout the international community. And he did this whilst giving the impression in public that he supported the government's position on all but minor details of process and timing.
Basically Ed Milband sacrificed the interests of the country on the altar of domestic party unity and advantage. He showed himself to be opportunistic, indecisive, unreliable and dishonest in the process.
This is not to say that Cameron did not make his own mistakes. But failure to whip his members effectively on a crucial vote in the national interest is a small failing when compared to the [in]actions of Miliband.
http://www.mkimpo.com/diary/2013/no_olympics_in_tokyo_13-08-31.html
I particularly liked the 5 rings rendered sad and blue by earthquakes and radiation.
I don't see much value in Madrid; Spain's problems are well-documented. Tokyo rightly favourite though.
2020 Olympics Likely To Go To Madrid: Source
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/09/04/2020-olympics_n_3869919.html
Coalition: 53.33%
Labor: 46.67%
There are roughly another 2.5 million 2PP votes to be counted so it's possible the final result could be 54-46.
http://vtr.aec.gov.au/
kerry Munich quote, on c4news nowish... He says "we and our French partners know this is not a time to be silent spectators for slaughter"
@faisalislam
"This is our Munich moment, this is our chance to stand together and choose accountability over appeasement" is the quote from John Kerry
Yes, Ed, he is talking about you.
Awww, tim.
You have visions of a Britain united on foreign policy?
It was the future once.
1. Cameron gave Miliband access to the data, and received agrement in principle. I wouldn't have agreed, but this isn't about me.
2. Miliband then put down a motion which differed in detail from the Government motion, and informed the Government that this was as far as Labour was prepared to go. As you will know, this is standard Commons procedure.
3. The Government used its majority to vote down the motion (why, if you feel there was no substantive difference?), and then whinged that Labour voted against the Government's motion, as they'd said they would. They're still whinging, a week later, as is your good self.
If the Government had wanted unity, they could have agreed on the similar Labour motion. But they didn't - they preferred to gamble that they could get their motion through, purely because it was theirs.
If I felt strongly, I could reasonably say that the Government sacrificed the perceived interests of the country on the altar of domestic party unity and advantage. I don't feel strongly and feel the right result was reached and accepted by Cameron with good grace. We should both save the overheated rhetoric for a better occasion.
Lab 35% (-1) Con 30% (+1) UKIP 17 (-1) L Dems 7% (-1)
Don't look to Ed Miliband for moral leadership
The Labour leader has shown a worrying lack of courage over the gassing of Syrians
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/sep/07/syria-ed-miliband-no-moral-courage
In fact, it seems to me that it only happened because the two front benches were engaged in party-political brinksmanship.
The convention is that the House gives cross-party support to the government of the time on matters of national security and on military action taken in furtherance of foreign policy.
What happened was that the three main parties all voted in support of the government policy but support was split between two votes. The mother of all f---ups by the mother of all Parliaments.
The default option is for the away team to play with the home team's ball. If you think Labour's ball was substantively different from that of the Government's, I would be interested to learn from you in what ways it differed and why the differences were significant and substantive?
As tim said downthread Cameron and Blair would support Istambul for the 2020 Olympics.
Would it have taken that much effort for Cameron and Miliband to support the high jump for Assad in Damascus? Or are we now condoning substance abuse in both sport and war?
Ouch on top of an ouch article.
It was the awesome St Petersburg speech, wot did it.
Music to the electorate's ears.
Lab 9484
SNP 5336
LDem 3841
Con 1628
Others 1457
You reckon he's determined to press ahead bur he hasn't the bottle?
So why did 30 Tories vote against military action?
Why were there Tories claiming not have heard the Division Bell?
1. I believe that Cameron did jump in too early with the recall and mishandled the whipping operation. I said that the day after the vote, so let us accept that and move on.
2. I also believe that Miliband did agree one position with Cameron and then reneged on it. There are other examples recently of Miliband being unable to say one thing and stick to it.
Now whilst I do welcome the fact that we are now highly unlikely to be involved in any military moves in Syria, you should ponder the problem of having as a Leader of your party someone that lacks the backbone to stick to a deal or promise. He cannot even hold the line on Unite's electoral antics. There is now a growing list of centre left commentators lining up against Miliband. Cohen, Aaronovitch, Rentoul, Hodges etc... that list is growing. The good news for the Conservatives is that your party also sticks with unappealing duds as Leaders. Brown, Kinnock, Foot etc.
You reckon he's determined to press ahead bur he hasn't the bottle?
All these leftie commentator s are wrong and you are right tim - the only explanation.
At the end of July, the average Opinium Labour lead was approx 10%
Well done ,Ed. Keep on kicking against the pricks.
http://imgur.com/ePUUSKq
Abe makes Gordon look like a model of Scotch prudence.
As I've said, I don't agree with him myself - I think we should have simply refused to support military action. But that's a matter of policy rather than honesty. The partisan politics deployed here were entirely the Government's determined to win THEIR motion rather than accept a substantively similar one in the interest of getting agreement.
A more interesting question is what would have happened if they had accepted it, and then Congress voted Obama's motion down. Would we have attacked Syria alone with the French?
Get real.
Getting even more desperate now lad.. go and fetch some cows in..
However, today’s poll underlines the continuing opposition of the British public to any UK action even if chemicals are found by the UN to have been used. Some 46 per cent do not want MPs to vote again if this is found to have been the case, while 36 per cent do
Asked what Britain’s policy on Syria should be, regardless of any parliamentary vote, just 19 per cent want the UK to join US-led missile strikes. Nearly half (47 per cent) backs the current policy of providing humanitarian aid to Syrian refugees rather than taking military action.
Some 16 per cent take an even more isolationist line - wanting no military action and no more humanitarian aid.
The survey suggests, however that British voters see Syria as a special case. While only 16 per cent believe Britain should “always” intervene militarily against regimes which use chemical weapons, 44 per cent think the country should “sometimes” act and 24 per cent say intervention should “always” happen.
There is also recognition that the House of Commons vote could persuade dictators to use their chemical stockpiles. Just under a quarter (24 per cent) of voters thinks the vote makes it more likely foreign regimes will commit atrocities against their own people, compared to only eight per cent who say they are now less likely to do so.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10293825/British-voters-oppose-military-attack-on-Syria-poll-reveals.html
pique
n.
A state of vexation caused by a perceived slight or indignity; a feeling of wounded pride.
tr.v. piqued, piqu·ing, piques
1. To cause to feel resentment or indignation.
2. To provoke; arouse: The portrait piqued her curiosity.
3. To pride (oneself): He piqued himself on his stylish attire.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/pique
All you seem to do on here in non stop whining about imagined slights.
So do you think the chemical warfare treaties are worthless and not worth upholding? Would you vote for them (and the principles behind them) to be scrapped under a new Labour government? What is the purpose of the CWC and other treaties if they are not upheld? (*)
If not, what is your solution to the Syrian problem, especially their use of chemical weapons? Your previous answer to the question was hardly stellar.
The last part of your post is patently ridiculous and ignores cause and effect. Miliband's thrown a giant spanner in the works; if the vote in the UK had gone in favour of another vote for intervention (not even intervention directly) then we would be in a different place.
Miliband's f'ed up. It may have been the answer you wanted (and coming from someone who voted for Iraq, that's quite some thing), but that does not make it the right answer.
(*) And before people say: yes, I know there have been problems in the past. That's no reason to set a better precedent and do the right thing now.
Cameron should not be praised for the outcome as the mismanagement of his party saw his own motion defeated. He has to learn that whipping backbenchers should not be conducted according to the rules of a Gentlemen's club.
But even had Cameron carried his motion he would still not have realised his goal of gaining cross-party support for the principle of intervention to enforce international norms. Clegg though did a fine job in herding his cats.
The fact that the House was divided on a matter in which it should have been united, pace the usual dissenters in all parties, can only be laid at Miliband's door. Cameron played it straight. Miliband didn't.
On the matter of reflecting public opinion, you are absolutely right that the coincidence of such an outcome was a pure accident. But then on matters of inttelligence, diplomacy and international relations, the public should look to its politicians for leadership. The public rarely and rightly relishes the prospect of war and only supports it as a last resort and then only if its outcomes are successful. Asking the public to vote on going to war is passing the buck. This is a risk and responsibility that should be undertaken by our leaders.
Public opinion did not reflect the lack of a sound case for military intervention, but an absence of public trust political leadership.
I hope the Japanese get it (they should've got the rugby world cup, for that matter).
Edited extra bit: and, on the sporting theme, my pre-race piece is here: http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/italy-pre-race.html
Interesting to see the Alonso/Ferrari relationship apparently disintegrating before our very eyes.
Drama! First round tied between Istanbul and Madrid to see who goes through to 2nd round. Istanbul then edge Madrid by one vote
The happenings with regards to Falkirk are however I suspect more worrying for Ed supporters. He's visibly not in charge of his party. Now the question then beckons, 'Who is?'. I suspect that there is no programme from the lasagne set for example, however would you want to offer Balls an opportunity to put his foot in your door and sell an encyclopaedia?
Ed is currently the least safe of the three leaders.
Good question, perhaps. I think it's partly because Assad's image is less alien and demented than Gaddafi - people recognise a dictator, but not a madman (though perhaps we are too easily impressed by western clothing). And maybe also that we could see that intervening in Libya was likely to produce the result most people wanted, whereas firing some missiles at Syria won't do anything much.
But then I started looking at Scottish sub-samples, and I knew that was a mistake.
The headline of that piece would have been "Could the Nats hand Dave a majority in 2015?"
Post-qualifying he was very downbeat and blamed himself entirely. I wonder if going off-road damaged his car and/or confidence somewhat. It'll be intriguing to see if he can bounce back in the race.
Sadly the season seems to be melting into yet another series of Vettel processions. I have nothing against him, I just think a new champion would be refreshing.
Apologies - Istanbul beat Madrid by 49-45. Still incredibly tight though. Shattering for the Spanish.
SunTel/@ICMResearch "Wisdom Index" poll - Lab lead down to one point. Lab 32, Con 31, LD 16, Ukip 12.
Whereas Assad doesn't have that kind of history with the UK.
SunTel/@ICMResearch "Wisdom Index" poll - Lab lead down to one point. Lab 32, Con 31, LD 16, Ukip 12.
http://www.edl.me/
(That's the English Disco Lovers)
Ed Miliband suffers a fresh blow today as a new opinion poll cuts Labour's lead over the Conservatives to just one per cent going into the party conference season.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/10293777/New-poll-blow-for-Ed-Miliband.html